Three Reasons To Oppose A Constitutional Convention

March 2, 2013

The movement to have a Constitutional Convention seems to have gained some traction in certain circles. It’s a strange mix of Republicans and Democrats which in today’s climate suggests the citizens need to be even more vigilant. Almost from its inception the US Constitution has had its detractors and yet for almost two hundred years many have considered it to be an example to be admired and emulated. The irony inherent in the country which produced it wishing to replace it can hardly be over-stated.

The fundamental premise that citizens must remember is that those who wish to rewrite the constitution are, by definition, unhappy with it in its present form. Conservatives who support a convention are either extremely misguided or have hidden motives while liberals are simply upset that what’s left of the Constitution continues to restrict their freedom of action. In other words, those who wish to replace the Constitution are the very ones from whom the Constitution is designed to protect us. Of course they wish to abrogate those articles and clauses of the Constitution which prevent them from completely dominating the “ninety-nine per cent”, it’s in their nature. The Constitution was designed to protect the people from their government and thus it is hardly surprising that those in government wish to tweak it “just a bit” and get rid of those pesky little sections that prevent them from installing a dictator and eliminating our input.

So? The first three reasons to oppose a Constitutional Convention.

1. There is no limit to the kinds of changes such a Convention might ratify.

2. The delegates to the Convention are bound to be beholden to powerful and moneyed interests.

3. The status of the individual states in today’s world, meaning:

A. The sovereignty of the individual states being recognized by the Founding Fathers was a necessary ingredient in the production of the final product, while today’s delegates are almost certainly going to have other loyalties.

B. Conversely, a constitutional convention would necessarily recognize the right of each individual state to reject any new agreement and declare their independence.

For, “WE the people”, a constitutional convention is an extremely BAD idea.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

I don’t trust anyone today to make a decision to change our Constitution, especially in view of the fact that most people don’t seem to know what it says, or those that know what is says don’t understand the meaning. On the other hand, the US Constitution was designed to be modified just so. It is happening, in fact what I’ve found is that the proposed timeline is to launch the convention July 4th this year. I haven’t hear a ‘peep’ about it from our failed MSM.

1. If the one in place isn’t respected what makes anyone think anything will change with a new one?
2. The only people wanting it to change are those who want to weaken whatever protections we have left.
3. Imagine 5 states deciding they want nothing to do with it. Now we have a real civil war on our hands.
4. No guarantee that we would end up with the same form of government.
5. The first thing any group does when seizing power is write up a new constitution.
6. Hitler is but one example of an individual who legitimized his rule by following the constitutional process.